# C_2013260EN.01004802.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/48

---

Action brought on 18 July 2013 — Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig Holstein v ECB

(Case T-376/13)

2013/C 260/86

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig Holstein (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 16 April 2013 in the version of the decision of 22 May 2013 (LS/MD/13/313) in so far as the request for access to Annexes A and B to the ‘Exchange Agreement dated 15. February 2012 among the Hellenic Republic and the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem NBCs listed herein’ was not granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 16 April 2013 in the version of the decision of 22 May 2013 (LS/MD/13/313) in so far as the request for access to Annexes A and B to the ‘Exchange Agreement dated 15. February 2012 among the Hellenic Republic and the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem NBCs listed herein’ was not granted;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the basis of the Decision is illegal
  The applicant claims that, by its Decision ECB/2011/6, (1) the ECB materially extended the scope of the refusal grounds set out in Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3 (2) without sufficient authorisation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the basis of the Decision is illegal

The applicant claims that, by its Decision ECB/2011/6, (1) the ECB materially extended the scope of the refusal grounds set out in Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3 (2) without sufficient authorisation.

1

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements
  In this plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements. In that connection, the applicant states that, in the light of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the requirements of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU are set high and that the recitals in the preamble to the contested decision of the defendant do not satisfy the requirements laid down by the European Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements

In this plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements. In that connection, the applicant states that, in the light of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the requirements of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU are set high and that the recitals in the preamble to the contested decision of the defendant do not satisfy the requirements laid down by the European Court of Justice.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of substantive law
  In this plea, the applicant alleges breach of substantive law, since, as a result of its inadequate statement of reasons, the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to access to documents pursuant to Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 15(3) TFEU. Moreover, the refusal of access is disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of substantive law

In this plea, the applicant alleges breach of substantive law, since, as a result of its inadequate statement of reasons, the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to access to documents pursuant to Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 15(3) TFEU. Moreover, the refusal of access is disproportionate.

---

(1)  2011/342/EU: Decision of the European Central Bank of 9 May 2011 amending Decision ECB/2004/3 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2011/6) (OJ 2011 L 158, p. 37).

1

(2)  2004/258/EC: Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).

2

---